No, Flash does not auto-update on a Mac. Never has. I keep having to remember to install an updated version every couple of months. Firefox is frequently warning me about it.

It's not because Apple don't allow it, or didn't ship it, or any of that nonsense. It's because Adobe couldn't be bothered to write one or use an existing one.

There IS an auto-updated for Flash. On Windows. And it only updates the ActiveX control used by Internet Explorer, and not the NPAPI plug-in used by all other web browsers. It also doesn't seem to work - I have plenty of machines around here with out-of-date Flash ActiveX controls.

Oddly, they did bother providing an apt repository for Ubuntu, so at least you can get automatic updates on that platform...

What's wrong with the mods, today??How is this 'insightful', when I have been installing - and millions, if not billions along with me -, and upgrading, Flash automagically with my, with our, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade?

whooo never used a modern linux, have you? It's 'automagical' (god, I hate that word) because the distro pulls a version of flash into the repositories of said distro and then users _don't_ have to go to a website, but just install flash using the tools with which they install all other software - a package manager. It's explicitly NOT the latest version from the website of the developer. No installer made by the developer has to be run manually.

Also, with some distro's, you can now just tick a box during install to download proprietary software from the repos during install, so things like flash etc will work out of the box. That is just one tickbox, not going to a website, downloading and running the installer manually. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot.

If it were not for OS X, I would not use a Mac. All the style and design is nice, but if I were on MacOS 7 or MacOS 8, all the shiny in the world wouldn't help. Or maybe I'd use A/UX. I don't know. OS X gives me all the parts of UNIX I need, all the parts of NeXT I want, and the ability to do "normal user stuff" as well, without having to go out of my way.

I, too, have never met a Mac fanboy stereotype either, just a lot of Unix admins who don't want to have to work when they're not at work.

No, the "installer" is already present on your system, you are simply downloading data for the installer to process.

Using package management is hugely superior to the idea of manually downloading and executing a binary...

You have the convenience (one command or a couple of clicks, no need to keep clicking next etc).

If you use your distro repositories (which for most distros carry pretty much everything you want) there is far less risk of you getting a bad download, try googling for openoffice and see how many scam sites come up - and how many users do you think fall for them?

You have automatic updates of all your packages at the same time and in one place, no need to do manual updates, no need to have loads of updaters running in the background wasting your memory and bandwidth, and you can update everything at a convenient time - many programs check for updates at startup, but what if you only use those programs when you are offline or connected via an expensive/metered connection such as 3g or on a line which treats peak and offpeak downloads separately? With a central package manager you can update everything at a time when you're on a fast unmetered connection.

I give you credit for the false...trichotomy, but the preferred approach would be to ship an up-to-date version on a system that doesn't hang when it runs.

Not saying Apple should/shouldn't do that, but you're being a tad dishonest in your phrasing of the options.

It would also be somewhat disingenuous to consider any Apple vs. Flash decision in a vacuum. Make no mistake, this is a war for control and power over the mobile web. Flash on Mac is collateral damage.